*bv* 






s>' 






» ^ 






















'U-O* 






J.* 



d°* 









. V . t > • „ <*» V . o - • „ 



a 































63d Congress I SENATE I Document 

3d Session ) \ No. 716 



NEUTRALITY 



CORRESPONDENCE 

BETWEEN THE 

SECRETARY OF STATE 

AND 

CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

RELATING TO 

CERTAIN COMPLAINTS MADE THAT THE AMERICAN GOVERN- 
MENT HAS SHOWN PARTIALITY TO CERTAIN BELLIGER- 
ENTS DURING THE PRESENT EUROPEAN WAR 




WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1915 



3^1 



SUBMITTED BY MR. STONE. 

In the Senate of the United States, 

January 15 (calendar day , January 25), 1915 
Ordered, That the letter of Senator William J. Stone, of Januan 
1915, addressed to the Secretary of State, requesting informal 
relative to frequent complaints or charges made through the pi 
that this Government has shown partiality to Great Britain, Frar 
and Russia, as against Germany and Austria, during the present t 
between those powers, together with the reply of the Secretary 
State thereto, dated January 20, 1915, be printed as a Senate do 
ment, and that 5,000 additional copies be printed for the use of 1 
Senate document room. 
Attest : 

James M. Baker, Secretary 
2 



FEB 1 1915 



NEUTRALITY. 



LETTER OF SENATOR STONE. 

January 8, 1915. 
Dear Mr. Secretary: As you are aware, frequent complaints or 
charges are made in one form or another through the press that this 
Government has shown parti ah ty to Great Britain, France, and 
Russia as against Germany and Austria during the present war 
between those powers; in addition to which I have received numerous 
letters to the same effect from sympathizers with Germany and Aus- 
tria. The various grounds of these complaints may be summarized 
and stated in the following form: 

1. Freedom of communication by submarine cables, but 

censorship of wireless messages. 

2. Submission to censorship of mails, and in some cases to the 

repeated destruction of American letters found on neutral 
vessels. 

3. The search of American vessels for German and Austrian 

subjects — ■ 

(a) On the high seas. 

(b) In territorial waters of a belligerent. 

4. Submission without protest to English violations of the 

rules regarding absolute and conditional contraband, as 
laid down — 

(a) In the Hague Conventions. 

(b) In international law. 

(c) In the Declaration of London. 

5. Submission without protest to inclusion of copper in the 

list of absolute contraband. 

6. Submission without protest to interference with American 

trade to neutral countries — 

(a) In conditional contraband. 

(b) In absolute contraband. 

7. Submission without protest to interruption of trade in con- 

ditional contraband consigned to private persons in 
Germany and Austria, thereby supporting the policy of 
Great Britain to cut off all supplies from Germany and 
Austria. 

8. Submission to British interruption of trade in petroleum, 

rubber, leather, wool, etc. 

9. No interference with the sale to Great Britain and her allies 

of amis, ammunition, horses, uniforms, and other muni- 
tions of war, although such sales prolong the war. 

10. No suppression of sale of dumdum bullets to Great Britain. 

11. British warships are permitted to lie off American ports and 

intercept neutral vessels. 



4 NEUTRALITY. 

12. Submission without protest to disregard by Great Britain 

and her allies of — 

(a) American naturalization certificates. 

(b) American passports. 

13. Change of policy in regard to loans to belligerents: 

(a) General loans. 

(b) Credit loans. 

14. Submission to arrest of native-born Americans on neutral 

vessels and in British ports, ai}d their imprisonment. 

15. Indifference to confinement of noncombatants in detention 

camps in England and France. 

16. Failure to prevent transshipment of British troops and war 

material across the territory of the United States. 

17. Treatment and final internment of German steamship Geier 

and the collier LocJcsun at Honolulu. 

18. Unfairness to Germany in rules relative to coaling of war- 

ships in Panama Canal Zone. 

19. Failure to protest against the modifications of the declara- 

tion of London by the British Government. 

20. General unfriendly attitude of Government toward Germany 

and Austria. 
If you deem it not incompatible with the public interest I would 
be obliged if you would furnish me with whatever information your 
department may have touching these various points of complaint, 
or request the counselor of the State Department to send me the 
information, with any suggestions you or he may deem advisable to 
make with respect to either the legal or political aspects of the sub- 
ject. So far as informed I see no reason why all the matter I am 
requesting to be furnished should not be made public, to the end that 
the true situation may be known and misapprehensions quieted. 
I have the honor to be, 
Yours, sincerely, 

Wm. J. Stone. 
Hon. William Jennings Bryan, 

Secretary of State. 



LETTER OF SECRETARY OF STATE. 

Department of State, 

Washington, January 20, 1915. 

Dear Mr. Stone: I have received your letter of the 8th instant, 
referring to frequent complaints or charges made in one form or 
another through the press that this Government has shown partiality 
to Great Britain, France, and Russia against Germany and Austria 
during the present war, and stating that you have received numerous 
letters to the same effect from sympathizers with the latter powers. 
You summarize the various grounds of these complaints and ask that 
you be furnished with whatever information the department may 
have touching these points of complaint, in order that you may be 
informed as to what the true situation is in regard to these matters. 

In order that you may have such information as the department 
has on the subjects referred to in your letter, I will take them up 
seriatim. 

(1) Freedom, of communication by submarine cables versus censored 
communication by wireless. 

The reason that wireless messages and cable messages require 
different treatment by a neutral Government is as follows: 

Communications by wireless can not be interrupted by a belliger- 
ent. With a submarine cable it is otherwise. The possibility of 
cutting the cable exists, and if a belligerent possesses rfaval superiority 
the cable is cut, as was the German cable near the Azores by one of 
Germany's enemies and as was the British cable near Fanning Island 
by a German naval force. Since a cable is subject to hostile attack, 
the responsibility falls upon the belligerent and not upon the neutral 
to prevent cable communication. 

A more important reason, however, at least from the point of 
view of a neutral Government, is that messages sent out from a 
wireless station in neutral territory may be received by belligerent 
warships on the high seas. If these messages, whether plain or in 
cipher, direct the movements of warships or convey to them infor- 
mation as to the location of an enemy's public or private vessels, 
the neutral territory becomes a base of naval operations, to permit 
which would be essentially unneutral. 

As a wireless message can be received by all stations and vessels 
within a given radius, every message in cipher, whatever its intended 
destination, must be censored; otherwise military information may 
be sent to warships olf the coast of a neutral. It is manifest that a 
submarine cable is incapable of becoming a means of direct com- 
munication with a warship on the high seas. Hence its use cannot, 
as a rule, make neutral territory a base for the direction of naval 
operations. 



6 NEUTRALITY. 

(2) Censorship of mails and in some cases repeated destruction of 
American letters on neutral vessels. 

As to the censorship of mails, Germany as well as Great Britain has 
pursued this course in regard to private letters falling into their 
hands. The unquestioned right to adopt a measure of this sort makes 
objection to it inadvisable. 

It has been asserted that American mail on board of Dutch steamers 
has been repeatedly destroyed. No evidence to this effect has been 
filed with the Government, and therefore no representations have 
been made. Until such a case is presented in concrete form, this 
Government would not be justified in presenting the matter to the 
offending belligerent. Complaints have come to the department that 
mail on board neutral steamers has been opened and detained, but 
there seem to be but few cases where the mail from neutral countries 
has not been finally delivered. When mail is sent to belligerent 
countries open and is of a neutral and private character it has not been 
molested, so far as the department is advised. 

(3) Searching of American vessels for German and Austrian subjects 
on the high seas and in territorial waters of a belligerant. 

So far as this Government has been informed, no American vessels 
on the high seas, with two exceptions, have been detained or searched 
by belligerent warships for German and Austrian subjects. One of 
the exceptions to which reference is made is now the subject of a 
rigid investigation, and vigorous representations have been made to 
the offending Government. The other exception, where certain 
German passengers were made to sign a promise not to take part in 
the war, lias been brought to the attention of the offending Govern- 
ment with a declaration that such procedure, if true, is an unwar- 
ranted exercise of jurisdiction over American vessels in which this 
Government will not acquiesce. 

An American private vessel entering voluntarily the territorial 
waters of a belligerent becomes subject to its municipal laws, as do 
the persons on board the vessel. 

There have appeared in certain publications the assertion that 
failure to protest in these cases is an abandonment of the principle 
for which the United States went to war in 1812. If the failure to 
protest were true, which it is not, the principle involved is entirely 
different from the one appealed to against unjustifiable impressment 
of Americans in the British Navy in time of peace. 

(4) Submission without protest to British violations of the rules regard 
ing absolute and conditional contraband as laid down in The Hague con- 
ventions, the declaration of London, and international law. 

There is no Hague convention which deals with absolute or con- 
ditional contraband, and, as the declaration of London is not in force, 
the rules of international law only apply. As to the articles to be 
regarded as contraband, there is no general agreement between 
nations. It is the practice for a country, either in time of peace or 
after the outbreak of war, to declare the articles which it will consider 
as absolute or conditional contraband. It is true that a neutral 
Government is seriously affected by this declaration as the rights of 
its subjects or citizens may be impaired. But the rights and interests 
of belligerents and neutrals are opposed in respect to contraband 



NEUTRALITY. 7 

articles and trade and there is no tribunal to which questions of 
difference may be readily submitted. 

The record of the United States in the past is not free from criti- 
cism. When neutral this Government has stood for a restricted list 
of absolute and conditional contraband. As a belligerent, we have 
contended for a liberal list, according to our conception of the neces- 
sities of the case. 

The United States has made earnest representations to Great Brit- 
ain in regard to the seizure and detention by the British authorities 
of all American ships or cargoes bona fide destined to neutral ports, 
on t 1 ground that such seizures and detentions were contrary to 
the i xisting rules of international law. It will be recalled, however, 
that American courts have established various rules bearing on these 
matters. The rule of "continuous voyage" has been not only 
asserted by American tribunals but extended by them. They have 
exercised the right to determine from the circumstances whether the 
ostensible was the real destination. They have held that the ship- 
ment of articles of contraband to a neutral port "to order," from 
which, as a matter of fact, cargoes had been transshipped to the 
enemy, is corroborative evidence that the cargo is really destined to 
the enemy instead of to the neutral port of delivery. It is thus seen 
that some of the doctrines which appear to bear harshly upon neu- 
trals at the present time are analogous to or outgrowths from policies 
adopted by the United States when it was a belligerent. The Gov- 
ernment therefore can not consistently protest against the applica- 
tion of rules which it has followed in the past, unless they have not 
been practiced as heretofore. 

(5) Acquiescence without protest to the inclusion of copper' and other 
articles in the British lists of absolute contraband. 

The United States has now under consideration the question of 
the right of a belligerent to include "copper unwrought" in its list 
of absolute contraband instead of in its list of conditional contra- 
band. As the Government of the United States has in the past placed 
"all afficles from which ammunition is manufactured" in its contra- 
band list, and has declared copper to be among such materials, it 
necessarily finds some embarrassment in dealing with the subject. 

Moreover, there is no instance of the United States acquiescing in 
Great Britain's seizure of copper shipments. In every case, in which 
it has been done, vigorous representations have been made to the 
British Government, and the representatives of the United States 
have pressed for the release of the shipments. 

(6) Submission without protest to interference with American trade to 
neutral countries in conditional and absolute contraband. 

The fact that the commerce of the United States is interrupted by 
Great Britain is consequent upon the superiority of her navy on the 
high seas. History shows that whenever a country has possessed 
that superiority our trade has been interrupted and that few articles 
essential to the prosecution of the war' have been allowed to reach 
its enemy from this country. The department's recent note to the 
British Government, which has been made public, in regard to 
detentions and seizures of .American vessels and cargoes, is a com- 
plete answer to this complaint. 



8 NEUTRALITY. 

Certain other complaints appear aimed at the loss of profit in 
trade, which must include at least in part trade in contraband with 
Germany; while other complaints demand the prohibition of trade 
in contraband, which appear to refer to trade with the allies. 

(7) Submission without protest to interruption of trade in conditional 
contraband consigned to private persons in Germany and Austria, there- 
by supporting the policy of Great Britain to cut of all supplies from 
Germany and Austria. 

As no American vessel so far as known has attempted to carry con- 
ditional contraband to Germany or Austria-Hungary, no ground of 
complaint has arisen out of the seizure or condemnation by Great 
Britain of an American vessel with a belligerent destination. Until 
a case arises and the Government has taken action upon .it criticism 
is premature and unwarranted. The United States in its note of 
December 28 to the British Government strongly contended for the 
principle of freedom of trade in articles of conditional contraband not 
destined to the belligerent's forces. 

(8) Submission to British interference with trade in petroleum, rubber, 
leather, wool, etc. 

Petrol and other petroleum products have been proclaimed by 
Great Britain as contraband of war. In view of the absolute neces- 
sity of such products to the use of submarines,* aeroplanes, and 
motors, the United .States Government has not yet reached the con- 
clusion that they are improperly included in a list of contraband. 
Military operations to-day are largely a question of motive power 
through mechanical devices. It is therefore difficult to argue suc- 
cessfully against the inclusion of petroleum among the articles of 
contraband. As to the detention of cargoes of petroleum going to 
neutral countries, this Government has, thus far successfully, obtained 
the release in every case of detention or seizure which has been 
brought to its attention. 

Great Britain and France have placed rubber on the absolute 
contraband list and leather on the conditional contraband list. 
Rubber is extensively used in the manufacture and operation of 
motors and, like petrol, is regarded by some authorities as essential to 
motive power to-day. Leather is even more widely used in cavalry 
and infantry equipment. It is understood that both rubber and 
leather, together with wool, have been embargoed by most of the 
belligerent countries. It will be recalled that the United States has 
in the past exercised the right of embargo upon exports of any com- 
modity which might aid the enemy's cause. 

(9) The United States has not interfered with the sale to Great Britain 
and her allies of arms, ammunition, horses, uniforms, and other muni- 
tions of war, although such sales prolong the conflict. 

There is no power in the Executive to prevent the sale of ammu- 
nition to the belligerents. 

The duty of a neutral to re strict trade in munitions of war has never 
been imposed by international law or by municipal statute. It has 
never b< policy of this Government to prevent the shipment of 

arms or ammunition into belligerent territory, except in the case of 
neighboring American Republics, and then only when civil strife pre- 
vailed. Even to this extent the belligerents in the present conflict, 
when they were neutrals, have never, so far as the records disclose, 



NEUTRALITY. 9 

limited the sale of munitions of war. It is only necessary to point to 
the enormous quantities of arms and ammunition furnished by manu- 
facturers hi Germany to the belligerents in the Russo-Japanese war 
and in the recent Balkan wars to establish the general recognition of 
the propriety of the trade by a neutral nation. 

It may be added that on the 15th of December last the German 
ambassador, by direction of his Government, presented a copy of a 
memorandum of the Imperial German Government which, among 
other things, set forth the attitude of that Government toward 
traffic in contraband of war by citizens of neutral countries. The 
Imperial Government stated that "under the general principles of 
international law, no exception can be taken to neutral States letting 
war material go to Germany's enemies from or through neutral 
territory," and that the adversaries of Germany in the present war 
are, in the opinion of the Imperial Government, authorized to "draw 
on the United States contraband of war and especially arms worth 
billions of marks." These principles, as the ambassador stated, 
have been accepted by the United States Government in the state- 
ment issued by the Department of State on October 15 last, entitled 
"Neutrality and trade in contraband." Acting in conformity with 
the propositions there set forth, the United States has itself taken no 
part in contraband traffic, and has, so far as possible, lent its influence 
toward equal treatment for all belligerents in the matter of pur- 
chasing arms and ammunition of private persons in the United 
States. 

( 10) The United States has not suppressed the sale ofdum-dum bullets 
to Great Britain. 

On December 5 last the German ambassador addressed a note to the 
department, stating that the British Government had ordered from the 
Winchester Repeating Arms Co. 20,000 "riot guns," model 1897, and 
50,000,000 "buckshot cartridges" for use in such guns. The de ;irt- 
nient replied that it saw a published statement of the Winchester Co., 
the correctness of which the company has confirmed to the depart- 
ment by telegraph. In this statement the company categorically 
s denies that it has received an order for such guns and cartridges from 
or made any sales of such material to the British Government, or to 
any other Government engaged in the present war. The ambassador 
further called attention to "information, the accuracy of which is not 
to be doubted," that 8,000,000 cartridges fitted with "mushroom 
bullets" had been delivered since October of this year by the Union 
Metallic Cartridge Co. for the armament of the English army. In 
reply the department referred to the letter of December 10, 1914, 
of the Remington Arms-Union Metallic Cartridge Co., of New York, 
to the ambassador, called forth by certain newspaper reports of state- 
ments alleged to have been made by the ambassador in regard to the 
sales by that company of soft-nosed bullets. 

From this letter, a copy of which was sent to the department by 
the company, it appears that instead of 8,000,000 cartridges having 
been sold, only a little over 117,000 were manufactured and 109,000 
were sold. The letter further asserts that these cartridges were made 
to supply a demand for a better sporting cartridge with a soft-nosed 
bullet than had been manufactured theretofore, and that such cart- 
ridges can not be used in the military rifles of any foreign powers. 



10 NEUTRALITY. 

The company adds that its statements can be substantiated and that 
it is ready to give the ambassador any evidence that he may require 
on these points. The department further stated that it was also in 
receipt from the company of a complete detailed list of the persons 
to whom these cartridges were sold, and that from this list it appeared 
that the cartridges were sold to firms in lots of 20 to 2,000 and one 
lot each of 3,000, 4,000, and 5,000. Of these only 960 cartridges went 
to British North America and 100 to British East Africa. 

The department added that, if the ambassador could furnish evi- 
dence that this or any other company is manufacturing and selling 
for the use of the contending armies in Europe cartridges whose use 
would contravene The Hague conventions, the department would be 
glad to be furnished with this evidence, and that the President 
would, in case any American company is shown to be engaged in this 
traffic, use his influence to prevent so far as possible sales of such 
ammunition to the powers engaged in the European war, without 
regard to whether it is the duty of this Government, upon legal or 
conventional grounds, to take such action. 

The substance of both the ambassador's note and the department's 
reply have appeared in the press. 

The department has received no other complaints of alleged sales 
of dumdum bullets by American citizens to belligerent Governments. 

(11) British warships are permitted to lie off American ports and 
intercept neutral vessels. 

The complaint is unjustified from the fact that representations 
were made to the British Government that the presence of war ves- 
sels in the vicinity of New York Harbor was offensive to this Govern- 
ment and a similar complaint was made to the Japanese Government 
as to one of its cruisers in the vicinity of the port of Honolulu. In 
both cases the warships were withdrawn. 

It will be recalled that in 1863 the department took the position 
that captures made by its vessels after hovering about neutral ports 
would not be regarded as valid. In the Franco-Prussian War Presi- 
dent Grant issued a proclamation warning belligerent warships 
against hovering in the vicinity of American ports for purposes of 
observation or hostile acts. The same policy lias been maintained 
in the present war, and in all of the recent proclamations of neutrality 
the President states that such practice by belligerent warships is 
"unfriendly and offensive." 

(12) Great Britain and her allies are allowed without protest to dis- 
regard American citizenship papers and passports. 

American citizenship papers have been disregarded in a compara- 
tively few instances by Great Britain, but the same is true of all the 
belligerents. Bearers of American passports have been arrested in 
all the countries at war. <In every case of apparent illegal arrest the 
United States Government has entered vigorous protests with request 
for released The department does not know of any cases, except one 
or two which are still under investigation, in which naturalized 
Germans have not been released upon representations by this Govern- 
ment. There have, however, come to the department's notice 
authentic cases in which American passports have been fraudulently 
obtained and used by certain German subjects. 



NEUTRALITY. 11 

r l he Department of Justice has recently apprehended at least four 
persons of German nationality who, it is alleged, obtained American 
passports under pretense of being American citizens and for the 
purpose of returning to Germany without molestation by her ene- 
mies during the voyage. There are indications that a systematic 
plan had been devised to obtain American passports through fraud 
for the purpose of securing safe passage for German officers and 
reservists desiring to return to Germany. Such fraudulent use of 
passports by Germans themselves can have no other effect than to 
cast suspicion upon American passports in general. New regulations, 
however, requiring among other things the attaching of a photo- 
graph of the bearer I his passport, under the seal of the Department 
of State, and the vigilance of the Department of Justice, will doubt- 
less prevent any further misuse of American passports. 

(13) Change of policy in regard to loans to belligerents. 

War loans in this country were disapproved because inconsistent 
with the spirit of neutrality. There is a clearly defined difference be- 
tween a war loan and the purchase of arms and ammunition. The 
policy of disapproving of war loans affects all governments alike, so that 
the disapproval is not an unneutral act. The case is entirely different 
in the matter of arms and ammunition, because prohibition of ex- 
port not only might not, but, in this case, would not, operate equally 
upon the nations at war. Then, too, the reason given for the dis- 
approval of war loans is supported by other considerations which are 
absent in the case presented by the sale of arms and ammunition. 
The taking of money out of the United States during such a war as 
this might seriously embarrass the Government in case it needed to 
borrow money and it might also seriously impair this Nation's ability 
to assist the neutral nations which, though not participants in the 
war, are compelled to bear a heavy burden on account of the war, and, 
again, a war loan, if offered for popular subscription in the Unit eel 
States, would be taken up chiefly by those who are in sympathy with 
the belligerent seeking the loan. The result would be that great 
numbers of the American people might become more earnest par- 
tisans, having material interest in the success of the belligerent, whose 
bonds they hold. These purchases would not be confined to a few, 
but would spread generally throughout the country, so that the 
people would be divided into groups of partisans, which would re- 
sult in intense bitterness and might cause an undesirable, if not a 
serious, situation. On the other hand, contracts for and sales of 
contraband are mere matters of trade. The manufacturer, unless 
peculiarly sentimental, would sell to one belligerent as readily as he 
would to another. No general spirit of partisanship is aroused — no 
sympathies excited. The whole transaction is merely a matter of 
business. 

This Government has not been advised that any general loans have 
been made by foreign governments in this country since the President 
expressed his wish that loans of this character should not be made. 

(14) Submission to arrest of native-born Americans on neutral vessels 
and. in British ports and their imprisonment. 

The general charge &> to the arrest of American-born citizens on 
board neutral vessels and In British ports, the ignoring of their pass- 
ports, and their confinement in jails, requires evidence to support it. 



12 NEUTRALITY. 

That there have been cases of injustice of this sort is unquestionably 
true, but Americans in Germany have suffered in this way as Ameri- 
cans have in Great Britain. This Government has considered that 
the majority of these cases resulted from overzealousness on the part 
of subordinate officials in both countries, Every case which has b en 
brought to the attention of the Department of State has been promptly 
investigated and, if the facts warranted, a demand for release has 
been made. 

(15) Indifference to confinement of noncombatants in detention 
camps in England and France. 

As to the detention of noncombatants confined in concentration 
camps, all the belligerents, with perhaps the exception of Seryia and 
Russia, have made similar complaints and those for whom this Gov- 
ernment is acting have asked investigations, which representatives 
of this Government have mad? impartially. Their reports have 
shown that the treatment of prisoners is generally as good as possible 
under the conditions in all countries, and that there is no more reason 
to say that they are mistreated in one country than in another coun- 
try or that this Government has manifested an indifference in the 
matter. As this department's efforts at investigations seemed to 
develop bitterness between the countries, the department on Novem- 
ber 20 sent a circular instruction to its representatives not to under- 
take further investigation of concentration camps. 

But at the special request of the German Government that Mr. 
Jackson, former American minister at Bucharest, now attached to 
the American embassy at Berlin, make an investigation of the prison 
camps in England, in addition to the investigations already made, 
the department has consented to dispatch Mr. Jackson on this special 
mission. 

(16) Failure to prevent transshipment of British troops and war 
material across the territory of the United States. 

The department has had no specific case of the passage of convoys 
of troops across American territory brought to its notice. There 
have been rumors to this effect, but no actual facts have been pre- 
sented. The transshipment of reservists of all belligerents who 
have requested the privilege has been permitted on condition that 
they travel as individuals and not as organized, uniformed, or armed 
bodies. The German Embassy has advised the department that it 
would not be likely to avail itself of the privilege, but Germany's 
ally, Austria-Hungary, did so. 

Only one case raising the question of the transit of war material 
owned by a belligerent across United States territory has come to 
the department's notice. This was a request on the part of the 
Canadian Government for permission to ship equipment across 
Alaska to the sea. The request was refused. 

(17) Treatment and final internment of German steamship "Geier" 
and the collier " Locksun" at Honolulu. 

The Geier entered Honolulu on October 15 in an unseaworthy con- 
dition. The commanding officer reported the necessity of extensive 
repairs which would require an indefinite period for completion. The 
vessel was allowed the generous period of three weeks to Novemb' 7 
to make repairs and leave the port, or, failing to do so, to be inte 



JSTEUTRALITY. 13 

A longer period would have been contrary to international practice, 
which does not permit a vessel to remain for a long time in a neutral 
port for the purpose of repairing a generally run-down condition due 
to long sea service. Soon after the German cruiser arrived at Hono- 
lulu a Japanese cruise; appeared off the port and the commander of 
the Geier chose to intern the vessel rather than to depart from the 
harbor. 

Shortly after the (reier entered the port of Honolulu ihe steamer 
Locksun arrived. It was found that this vessel had delivered coal to 
the Geier en route and had accompanied her toward Hawaii. As she 
had thus constituted herself a tender or collier to the Geier she was 
accorded the same treatment and interned on November 7. 

(18) Unfairness to Germany in rules relative to coaling of warships in 
Panama Canal Zone. 

By proclamation of November 13, 1914, certain special restrictions 
were placed on the coaling of warships or their tenders or colliers in 
the (anal Zone. These regulations were framed through the col- 
laboration of the State, Navy, and War Departments and without 
the slightest reference to favoritism to the belligerents. Before these 
regulations were proclaimed, war vessels could procure coal of the 
Panama Railway in the zone ports, but no belligerent vessels are 
known to have done so. Under the proclamation fuel may be taken 
on by belligerent warships only with the consent of the canal au- 
thorities and in such amounts as will enable them to reach the 
nearest accessible neutral port; and the amount so taken on shall be 
deducted from the amount procurable in United States ports within 
three months thereafter. Now, it is charged the United States has 
shown partiality because Great Britain and not Germany happens to 
have colonies in the near vicinity where British ships may coal, while 
Germany has no such coaling facilities. Thus, it is intimated the 
United States should balance the inequalities of geographical position 
by refusing to allow any warships of belligerents to coal in the canal 
until the war is over. As no German warship has sought to obtain 
coal in the Canal Zone the charge of discrimination rests upon a pos- 
sibility which during several months of warfare has failed to mate- 
rialize. 

(19) Failure to protest against the modifications of the Declaration oj 
London by the British Government. 

The German Foreign Office presented to the diplomats in Berlin 
a memorandum dated October 10, calling attention to violations of 
and changes in the Declaration of London by the British Government 
and inquiring as to the attitude of the United States toward such 
action on the part of the allies. The substance of the memorandum 
was forthwith telegraphed to the department on October 22 and was 
replied to shortly thereafter to the effect that the United States had 
withdrawn its suggestion, made early in the war, that for the sake of 
uniformity the Declaration of London should be adopted as a tem- 
porary code of naval warfare during the present war, owing to the 
unwillingness of the belligerents to accept the declaration without 
changes and modifications, and that thenceforth the United States 
would insist that the rights of the United States and its citizens in the 
war should be governed by the existing rules of international law. 



14 NEUTRALITY. - 

As this Government is not now interested in the adoption of the 
Declaration of London by the belligerents, 11 e modifications by the 
belligerents in that co*le of naval warfare Are of no concern to it 
except as they adversely affect the rights of the United States and 
those of its citizens as defined by international law. In so far as 
those rights have been infringed the department has made every 
effort to obtain redress for the losses sustained. 

(20) General unfriendly attitude of Government toward Germany and 
Austria. 

If any American citizens, partisans of Germany and Austria-Him- 
gary, feel that this administration is acting in a way injurious to the 
cause of those countries, this feeling results from the- fact that on the 
high seas the German and Austro-Hungarian naval power is thus far 
inferior to the British. It is the business of a belligerent operating 
on the high seas, not the duty of a neutral, to prevent contraband from 
reaching an enemy. Those in this country who sympathize with 
Germany and Austria-Hungary appear to assume that some oblig'a- 
gation rests upon this Government in the performance of its neutral 
duty to prevent all trade in contraband, and thus to equalize the differ- 
ence due to the relative naval strength of the belligerents. No such 
obligation exists; it would be an unneutral act, an act of partiality 
on the part of this Government to adopt such a policy if the Execu- 
tive had the power to do so. If Germany and Austria-Hungary 
can not import contraband from this country it is not, because of 
that fact, the duty of the United States to close its markets to the 
allies. The markets of this country are open upon equal terms to 
all the world, to every nation, belligerent or neutral. 

The foregoing categorical replies to specific complaints is sufficient 
answer to the charge of unfriendliness to Germany and Austria- 
Hungary. 

I am, my dear Senator, 
Very sincerely, yours, 

W. J. Bryan. 

Hon. William. J. Stone, 

Chairman Committee on Foreign Relations, 

United States Senate, Washington, D, C t 













** 



V-0 



y 




• 



°v :*£lKr. *^o* -SMS?* "o^ 
' \^ .. ^ •*• ♦ 



•»• A. ^. "^ <V °^» ' 

*Ov A* + k^2 ** A 4. *^raa^» T^ 






A* •'- 









^» 









V ** *<* 






** *♦ \*aK- «#*X o W* *r% « 



s°+ 













V* .♦'^L'* c* 



^ V 



A ■ . . * * - 6 o> 

^ ,0* ..*£. V 







4> *7*#&«f»* o> o '. 



.* 









I* . » • o. 








^6* 










APR 8 0&". ^^ .^^o V.^ :||':\/ 

ST. AUGUSTINE ESS" £2 » * <£ilOl^ - 



32084 



<> ♦*t;T' .o 




> . * • 




